DOCSLIB.ORG

49 Revisiting Russell's Theory of Descriptions by Patrick Henning

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
49 Revisiting Russell's Theory of Descriptions by Patrick Henning Revisiting Russell’s Theory of Descriptions By Patrick Henning (California State University, Fullerton) Abstract: Bertrand Russell’s theory of definite descriptions played a significant role in the development of philosophy of language. However, the shift from semantics to pragmatics in the narrative of language philosophy seemed to leave Russell’s theory in the past as an important but obsolete stepping stone. There is a chance that Russell may have been dismissed too casually, and if so, the grounds on which his theory is rejected must be carefully re-evaluated. In this paper I examine two problems with Russell’s theory that extend beyond the most well-known direct criticisms. In particular, I investigate problems with Russell’s approach to egocentricity as well as his treatment of descriptions of fictional subjects. I then proceed to explore the high-level implications of these problems. Bertrand Russell’s theory of definite descriptions, first presented in “On Denoting”, played a significant role in the development of philosophy of language. The shift from semantics to pragmatics (initiated in part by P. F. Strawson’s reply to Russell: “On Referring”) in the narrative of language philosophy seemed to leave Russell’s theory in the past as an important stepping stone that has since been superseded by newer theories. “Mr. Strawson on Referring”, Russell’s subsequent attempt to uphold his theory in the face of changing trends, is “seldom taken seriously, at least not as a well-reasoned and successful defense against Strawson's superior criticism” (Austin, 531). However there is a chance that Russell may have been dismissed too casually, and if so, the grounds on which his theory is rejected must be carefully re-evaluated. In this paper I will first examine two problems with Russell’s theory that extend beyond Strawson’s direct criticisms. I will then proceed to explore the implications of these problems. In order to be reasonably charitable throughout the course of criticism, our initial point of engagement with Russell will be within his own domain of logical analysis. Russell’s theory was constructed, in part, as a solution to the problem of empty denotation. There are names and other denoting phrases which seem to refer to nothing, and thus present a puzzle for language philosophers. An example of an empty denoting phrase is ‘the present King of France’, as there is currently no King of France to refer to. Empty denotation is at the root of confusion regarding how to analyze sentences such as the following: (S1): “The present King of France is wise” Since there is presently no King of France, what is the correct way to interpret this sentence? There are several potential answers. According to Alexius Meinong, if a denoting phrase is grammatically correct then there is a guaranteed referent. In the case of no real referent it is an unreal object. Russell is unsatisfied with such an answer due to his belief in the importance of a robust sense of reality which excludes nonexistent objects (“On Denoting” 885). Gottlob Frege put forth the idea that denoting phrases 49 have sense (meaning) as well as denotation (reference). An empty denoting phrase refers to the null class, and has a meaning despite its failure to refer. However Russell felt that a distinction between meaning and denotation is erroneous: if ‘the present King of France’ retains meaning in the absence of a referent, then we are inclined to say that S1 is nonsense (due to its seeming lack of truth or falsity) (“On Denoting” 878). Russell viewed S1 as a meaningful sentence, and by his reasoning, (P1): a sentence is meaningful if and only if it has a truth value. So the demonstration of the meaningfulness of S1 would require a demonstration of either truth or falsity. Russell argued that the ambiguity of sentences in the vein of S1 is due to fact that the structure of ordinary language is at odds with the structure of logical propositions. Contrary to Frege, Russell held that denoting phrases (which are not complete sentences on their own) do not in themselves have a meaning. If Russell was correct, then the correct explicit rendering of a proposition adjusts the role of the denoting phrase, yet preserves the meaning. In order to prevent S1 from being nonsensical, Russell formulated it in the following way: (S1*): “There exists one and only one x such that x is the present King of France and x is wise.” S1* serves Russell’s goal as it is both sensical and false. This mode of interpretation allows Russell to treat language which involves empty denotation as sensical without having to admit Meinongian nonexistent objects into his ontology. An important assumption that the formulation of S1* depends on is the premise that (P2): “all uniquely referring expressions entail a uniquely existential claim” (Austin, 532). Strawson takes issue with P1 (the contingence of meaning upon truth value), which can be challenged by asserting that sentences such as S1 actually have no truth value yet are meaningful nonetheless. Strawson contends that P2, and the special treatment given by Russell to empty denoting phrases, is part of an ad hoc attempt to preserve the integrity of P1 in the face of sentences like S1. Although S1* is logically compatible with P1, for Strawson the fact remains that meaning is not dependent on truth or falsity. Central to Strawson’s account of meaning (and his criticism of Russell) is the distinction between a sentence and the use of a sentence. For Strawson the meaning of a sentence is simply the rules which govern its correct usage. To illustrate the difference between a sentence and its uses we can consider several examples. First, we imagine that S1 is uttered during the reign of Louis XIV, and that Louis XIV is wise. In this case, the assertion made by the use of S1 would be true. Next, we imagine that S1 is uttered during the reign of Louis XV, and that Louis XV is not wise. Here the assertion made via the use of 50 S1 is false. Finally, we imagine that S1 is uttered in the present. Russell would say that in this situation the sentence is false. Strawson, on the other hand, would say that in this case S1 has been used vacuously and is neither true nor false. We can’t ascribe truth or falsity to a sentence or every use of a sentence; only to assertions made in particular correct uses of sentences. At this point it may appear that Strawson is the clear winner in this dialectic. However James Austin’s examination of “Mr. Strawson on Referring” presents a compelling reason why Russell may have been at least partially correct. Russell’s theory is dismissed by Strawson based on P1, but Austin suggests that Russell was not asserting P1 in the first place. Austin argues that Russell is dealing strictly with propositions, not sentences, and that Russell would not assent to P1 as it has been constructed here; he is not making a normative claim about strings of words in all possible forms and contexts. Instead of P1, Russell may have been claiming that (P1*): a sentence is meaningful when and only when it is being used to make a true or false assertion. P1* brings Russell’s theory closer to Strawson’s in terms of how truth values are assigned. Of course it is important to examine precisely how it is that Russell’s theory handles differences in truth values between uses of sentences. The Russellian account of variations in sentence use relies on the concept of egocentric particulars. Egocentric particulars are "words of which the meaning varies with the speaker and his position in time and space" (Austin, 534). The idea is that egocentric particulars allow for variations in the referent of a description. Variable reference accounts for the difference between a sentence in isolation and a sentence in use in a specific context. To show that Strawson’s criticisms are taken care of by egocentric particulars, Austin provides an adjusted version of S1 which removes the egocentricity: (S2): “The king of France in 1905 is wise”. S2 can only be used to assert one thing, thus its meaning has been fixed via the removal of egocentricity. It appears that the claim can no longer be made that Russell’s theory overlooks the difference between sentences and their use. Austin’s defense of Russell is a strong one (for now we will grant its validity) and in its wake a valid criticism of Russell will likely need to somehow demonstrate the weakness of Russell’s use of egocentricity. In “A Strawsonian Objection to Russell's Theory of Descriptions”, Murali Ramachandran presents an interesting criticism of Russell’s theory that goes beyond the territory explicitly covered by Strawson. Ramachandran’s approach circumnavigates a difficulty (related to Austin’s point) faced by the 51 Strawsonian. Strawson would insist that Russell’s theory requires sentences with multiple potential referents to be false (when they could in fact be found true based on contextual clues). The Russellian reply to this argument would be that the context of utterance will provide the missing piece of an incomplete description (regarding an egocentric particular), which seems to place the debate at an impasse. The possibility for Russell’s theory to be embellished in the aforementioned way necessitates an alternative angle of attack. Ramachandran’s goal is to find an example of an utterance that, under Russellian analysis, has a truth value even though it shouldn’t. In search of such a case, we can imagine a situation in which the sentence (S3): “The table is covered with books” is uttered.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Denying a Dualism: Goodman's Repudiation of the Analytic/Synthetic Distinction
    Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 28, 2004, 226-238. Denying a Dualism: Goodman’s Repudiation of the Analytic/Synthetic Distinction Catherine Z. Elgin The analytic synthetic/distinction forms the backbone of much modern Western philosophy. It underwrites a conception of the relation of representations to reality which affords an understanding of cognition. Its repudiation thus requires a fundamental reconception and perhaps a radical revision of philosophy. Many philosophers believe that the repudiation of the analytic/synthetic distinction and kindred dualisms constitutes a major loss, possibly even an irrecoverable loss, for philosophy. Nelson Goodman thinks otherwise. He believes that it liberates philosophy from unwarranted restrictions, creating opportunities for the development of powerful new approaches to and reconceptions of seemingly intractable problems. In this article I want to sketch some of the consequences of Goodman’s reconception. My focus is not on Goodman’s reasons for denying the dualism, but on some of the ways its absence affects his position. I do not contend that the Goodman obsessed over the issue. I have no reason to think that the repudiation of the distinction was a central factor in his intellectual life. But by considering the function that the analytic/synthetic distinction has performed in traditional philosophy, and appreciating what is lost and gained in repudiating it, we gain insight into Goodman’s contributions. I begin then by reviewing the distinction and the conception of philosophy it supports. The analytic/synthetic distinction is a distinction between truths that depend entirely on meaning and truths that depend on both meaning and fact. In the early modern period, it was cast as a distinction between relations of ideas and matters of fact.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophical Logic 2018 Course Description (Tentative) January 15, 2018
    Philosophical Logic 2018 Course description (tentative) January 15, 2018 Valentin Goranko Introduction This 7.5 hp course is mainly intended for students in philosophy and is generally accessible to a broad audience with basic background on formal classical logic and general appreciation of philosophical aspects of logic. Practical information The course will be given in English. It will comprise 18 two-hour long sessions combining lectures and exercises, grouped in 2 sessions per week over 9 teaching weeks. The weekly pairs of 2-hour time slots (incl. short breaks) allocated for these sessions, will be on Mondays during 10.00-12.00 and 13.00-15.00, except for the first lecture. The course will begin on Wednesday, April 4, 2018 (Week 14) at 10.00 am in D220, S¨odra huset, hus D. Lecturer's info: Name: Valentin Goranko Email: [email protected] Homepage: http://www2.philosophy.su.se/goranko Course webpage: http://www2.philosophy.su.se/goranko/Courses2018/PhilLogic-2018.html Prerequisites The course will be accessible to a broad audience with introductory background on classical formal logic. Some basic knowledge of modal logics would be an advantage but not a prerequisite. Brief description Philosophical logic studies a variety of non-classical logical systems intended to formalise and reason about various philosophical concepts and ideas. They include a broad family of modal logics, as well as many- valued, intuitionistic, relevant, conditional, non-monotonic, para-consistent, etc. logics. Modal logics extend classical logic with additional intensional logical operators, reflecting different modes of truth, including alethic, epistemic, doxastic, temporal, deontic, agentive, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Philosophy. Social Studies--Language Arts: 6414.16. INSTITUTION Dade County Public Schools, Miami, Fla
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 086 604 SO 006 822 AUTHOR Norris, Jack A., Jr. TITLE Introduction to Philosophy. Social Studies--Language Arts: 6414.16. INSTITUTION Dade County Public Schools, Miami, Fla. PUB DATE 72 NOTE 20p.; Authorized Course of Instruction for the Quinmester Program EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29 DESCRIPTORS Course Objectives; Curriculum Guides; Grade 10; Grade 11; Grade 12; *Language Arts; Learnin4 Activities; *Logic; Non Western Civilization; *Philosophy; Resource Guides; Secondary Grades; *Social Studies; *Social Studies Units; Western Civilization IDENTIFIERS *Quinmester Program ABSTRACT Western and non - western philosophers and their ideas are introduced to 10th through 12th grade students in this general social studies Quinmester course designed to be used as a preparation for in-depth study of the various schools of philosophical thought. By acquainting students with the questions and categories of philosophy, a point of departure for further study is developed. Through suggested learning activities the meaning of philosopky is defined. The Socratic, deductive, inductive, intuitive and eclectic approaches to philosophical thought are examined, as are three general areas of philosophy, metaphysics, epistemology,and axiology. Logical reasoning is applied to major philosophical questions. This course is arranged, as are other quinmester courses, with sections on broad goals, course content, activities, and materials. A related document is ED 071 937.(KSM) FILMED FROM BEST AVAILABLE COPY U S DEPARTMENT EDUCATION OF HEALTH. NAT10N41
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae
    BAS C. VAN FRAASSEN Curriculum Vitae Last updated 3/6/2019 I. Personal and Academic History .................................................................................................................... 1 List of Degrees Earned ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 Title of Ph.D. Thesis ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 Positions held ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Invited lectures and lecture series ........................................................................................................................................ 1 List of Honors, Prizes ......................................................................................................................................................... 4 Research Grants .................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Non-Academic Publications ................................................................................................................................................ 5 II. Professional Activities .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Puzzles About Descriptive Names Edward Kanterian
    Puzzles about descriptive names Edward Kanterian To cite this version: Edward Kanterian. Puzzles about descriptive names. Linguistics and Philosophy, Springer Verlag, 2010, 32 (4), pp.409-428. 10.1007/s10988-010-9066-1. hal-00566732 HAL Id: hal-00566732 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00566732 Submitted on 17 Feb 2011 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Linguist and Philos (2009) 32:409–428 DOI 10.1007/s10988-010-9066-1 RESEARCH ARTICLE Puzzles about descriptive names Edward Kanterian Published online: 17 February 2010 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010 Abstract This article explores Gareth Evans’s idea that there are such things as descriptive names, i.e. referring expressions introduced by a definite description which have, unlike ordinary names, a descriptive content. Several ignored semantic and modal aspects of this idea are spelled out, including a hitherto little explored notion of rigidity, super-rigidity. The claim that descriptive names are (rigidified) descriptions, or abbreviations thereof, is rejected. It is then shown that Evans’s theory leads to certain puzzles concerning the referential status of descriptive names and the evaluation of identity statements containing them.
    [Show full text]
  • The Analytic-Synthetic Distinction and the Classical Model of Science: Kant, Bolzano and Frege
    Synthese (2010) 174:237–261 DOI 10.1007/s11229-008-9420-9 The analytic-synthetic distinction and the classical model of science: Kant, Bolzano and Frege Willem R. de Jong Received: 10 April 2007 / Revised: 24 July 2007 / Accepted: 1 April 2008 / Published online: 8 November 2008 © The Author(s) 2008. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract This paper concentrates on some aspects of the history of the analytic- synthetic distinction from Kant to Bolzano and Frege. This history evinces con- siderable continuity but also some important discontinuities. The analytic-synthetic distinction has to be seen in the first place in relation to a science, i.e. an ordered system of cognition. Looking especially to the place and role of logic it will be argued that Kant, Bolzano and Frege each developed the analytic-synthetic distinction within the same conception of scientific rationality, that is, within the Classical Model of Science: scientific knowledge as cognitio ex principiis. But as we will see, the way the distinction between analytic and synthetic judgments or propositions functions within this model turns out to differ considerably between them. Keywords Analytic-synthetic · Science · Logic · Kant · Bolzano · Frege 1 Introduction As is well known, the critical Kant is the first to apply the analytic-synthetic distinction to such things as judgments, sentences or propositions. For Kant this distinction is not only important in his repudiation of traditional, so-called dogmatic, metaphysics, but it is also crucial in his inquiry into (the possibility of) metaphysics as a rational science. Namely, this distinction should be “indispensable with regard to the critique of human understanding, and therefore deserves to be classical in it” (Kant 1783, p.
    [Show full text]
  • Description Logics—Basics, Applications, and More
    Description Logics|Basics, Applications, and More Ian Horrocks Information Management Group University of Manchester, UK Ulrike Sattler Teaching and Research Area for Theoretical Computer Science RWTH Aachen, Germany RWTH Aachen 1 Germany Overview of the Tutorial • History and Basics: Syntax, Semantics, ABoxes, Tboxes, Inference Problems and their interrelationship, and Relationship with other (logical) formalisms • Applications of DLs: ER-diagrams with i.com demo, ontologies, etc. including system demonstration • Reasoning Procedures: simple tableaux and why they work • Reasoning Procedures II: more complex tableaux, non-standard inference prob- lems • Complexity issues • Implementing/Optimising DL systems RWTH Aachen 2 Germany Description Logics • family of logic-based knowledge representation formalisms well-suited for the representation of and reasoning about ➠ terminological knowledge ➠ configurations ➠ ontologies ➠ database schemata { schema design, evolution, and query optimisation { source integration in heterogeneous databases/data warehouses { conceptual modelling of multidimensional aggregation ➠ : : : • descendents of semantics networks, frame-based systems, and KL-ONE • aka terminological KR systems, concept languages, etc. RWTH Aachen 3 Germany Architecture of a Standard DL System Knowledge Base I N Terminology F E I R Father = Man u 9 has child.>... N E T Human = Mammal. u Biped . N E Description C R E F Logic A Concrete Situation S C Y E John:Human u Father S John has child Bill . T . E M RWTH Aachen 4 Germany Introduction
    [Show full text]
  • The Theory of Descriptions 1. Bertrand Russell (1872-1970): Mathematician, Logician, and Philosopher
    Louis deRosset { Spring 2019 Russell: The Theory of Descriptions 1. Bertrand Russell (1872-1970): mathematician, logician, and philosopher. He's one of the founders of analytic philosophy. \On Denoting" is a founding document of analytic philosophy. It is a paradigm of philosophical analysis. An analysis of a concept/phenomenon c: a recipe for eliminating c-vocabulary from our theories which still captures all of the facts the c-vocabulary targets. FOR EXAMPLE: \The Name View Analysis of Identity." 2. Russell's target: Denoting Phrases By a \denoting phrase" I mean a phrase such as any one of the following: a man, some man, any man, every man, all men, the present King of England, the present King of France, the centre of mass of the Solar System at the first instant of the twentieth century, the revolution of the earth round the sun, the revolution of the sun round the earth. (479) Includes: • universals: \all F 's" (\each"/\every") • existentials: \some F " (\at least one") • indefinite descriptions: \an F " • definite descriptions: \the F " Later additions: • negative existentials: \no F 's" (480) • Genitives: \my F " (\your"/\their"/\Joe's"/etc.) (484) • Empty Proper Names: \Apollo", \Hamlet", etc. (491) Russell proposes to analyze denoting phrases. 3. Why Analyze Denoting Phrases? Russell's Project: The distinction between acquaintance and knowledge about is the distinction between the things we have presentation of, and the things we only reach by means of denoting phrases. [. ] In perception we have acquaintance with the objects of perception, and in thought we have acquaintance with objects of a more abstract logical character; but we do not necessarily have acquaintance with the objects denoted by phrases composed of words with whose meanings we are ac- quainted.
    [Show full text]
  • Russell's Theory of Descriptions
    Russell’s theory of descriptions PHIL 83104 September 5, 2011 1. Denoting phrases and names ...........................................................................................1 2. Russell’s theory of denoting phrases ................................................................................3 2.1. Propositions and propositional functions 2.2. Indefinite descriptions 2.3. Definite descriptions 3. The three puzzles of ‘On denoting’ ..................................................................................7 3.1. The substitution of identicals 3.2. The law of the excluded middle 3.3. The problem of negative existentials 4. Objections to Russell’s theory .......................................................................................11 4.1. Incomplete definite descriptions 4.2. Referential uses of definite descriptions 4.3. Other uses of ‘the’: generics 4.4. The contrast between descriptions and names [The main reading I gave you was Russell’s 1919 paper, “Descriptions,” which is in some ways clearer than his classic exposition of the theory of descriptions, which was in his 1905 paper “On Denoting.” The latter is one of the optional readings on the web site, and I reference it below sometimes as well.] 1. DENOTING PHRASES AND NAMES Russell defines the class of denoting phrases as follows: “By ‘denoting phrase’ I mean a phrase such as any one of the following: a man, some man, any man, every man, all men, the present king of England, the centre of mass of the Solar System at the first instant of the twentieth century, the revolution of the earth around the sun, the revolution of the sun around the earth. Thus a phrase is denoting solely in virtue of its form.” (‘On Denoting’, 479) Russell’s aim in this article is to explain how expressions like this work — what they contribute to the meanings of sentences containing them.
    [Show full text]
  • Willard Van Orman Quine: the Analytic/Synthetic Distinction
    Willard Van Orman Quine: The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction Willard Van Orman Quine was one of the most well-known American “analytic” philosophers of the twentieth century. He made significant contributions to many areas of philosophy, including philosophy of language, logic, epistemology, philosophy of science, and philosophy of mind/psychology (behaviorism). However, he is best known for his rejection of the analytic/synthetic distinction. Technically, this is the distinction between statements true in virtue of the meanings of their terms (like “a bachelor is an unmarried man”) and statements whose truth is a function not simply of the meanings of terms, but of the way the world is (such as, “That bachelor is wearing a grey suit”). Although a contentious thesis, analyticity has been a popular explanation, especially among empiricists, both for the necessity of necessary truths and for the a priori knowability of some truths. Thus, in some contexts “analytic truth,” “necessary truth,” and “a priori truth” have been used interchangeably, and the analytic/synthetic distinction has been treated as equivalent to the distinctions between necessary and contingent truths, and between a priori and a posteriori (or empirical) truths. Empirical truths can be known only by empirical verification, rather than by “unpacking” the meanings of the terms involved, and are usually thought to be contingent. Quine wrestled with the analytic/synthetic distinction for years, but he did not make his thoughts public until 1950, when he delivered his paper, “The Two Dogmas of Empiricism” at a meeting of the American Philosophical Association. In this paper, Quine argues that all attempts to define and understand analyticity are circular.
    [Show full text]
  • Theory of Knowledge in Britain from 1860 to 1950
    Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication Volume 4 200 YEARS OF ANALYTICAL PHILOSOPHY Article 5 2008 Theory Of Knowledge In Britain From 1860 To 1950 Mathieu Marion Université du Quéebec à Montréal, CA Follow this and additional works at: https://newprairiepress.org/biyclc This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Recommended Citation Marion, Mathieu (2008) "Theory Of Knowledge In Britain From 1860 To 1950," Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication: Vol. 4. https://doi.org/10.4148/biyclc.v4i0.129 This Proceeding of the Symposium for Cognition, Logic and Communication is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences at New Prairie Press. It has been accepted for inclusion in Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication by an authorized administrator of New Prairie Press. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Theory of Knowledge in Britain from 1860 to 1950 2 The Baltic International Yearbook of better understood as an attempt at foisting on it readers a particular Cognition, Logic and Communication set of misconceptions. To see this, one needs only to consider the title, which is plainly misleading. The Oxford English Dictionary gives as one August 2009 Volume 4: 200 Years of Analytical Philosophy of the possible meanings of the word ‘revolution’: pages 1-34 DOI: 10.4148/biyclc.v4i0.129 The complete overthrow of an established government or social order by those previously subject to it; an instance of MATHIEU MARION this; a forcible substitution of a new form of government.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Russell's Theory of Descriptions to S
    Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú The Rise of Analytic Philosophy Scott Soames Seminar 6: From “On Denoting” to “On the Nature of Truth and Falsehood” Using Russell’s Theory of Descriptions to Solve Logical Puzzles One of Russell’s puzzles involves the law of classical logic called the law of the excluded middle. Here is his statement of the puzzle, which involves sentences (37a-c). “By the law of excluded middle, either “A is B” or “A is not B” must be true. Hence either “The present King of France is bald” or “The present King of France is not bald” must be true. Yet if we enumerated the things that are bald and the things that are not bald, we should not find the present King of France in either list. Hegelians, who love a synthesis, will probably conclude that he wears a wig.” (485) 1a. The present King of France is bald. b. The present King of France is not bald. c. Either the present King of France is bald or the present King of France is not bald. In the passage, Russell gives a reason for supposing that neither (1a) nor (1b) is true, which in turn seems to suggest that (1c) isn’t true. But that violates a law of classical logic that tells us that for every sentence S, ⎡Either S or ~S⎤ is true. Since Russell regarded the law as correct, he needed a way of defusing this apparent counterexample. The key to doing this lies in his general rule R for determining the logical form of sentences containing definite descriptions.
    [Show full text]